ORDER A.P. Sen, J.
1. In this special leave petition a question was raised regarding the authority and jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to strike down as constitutionally invalid a rule framed by the President of India under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution as being violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. That depends on a construction of Sections 14(1), 28 and 29(1) of the Act, as amended, read in the light of Article 323A of the Constitution. Since the question raised was of far-reaching importance we issued a notice to the learned Attorney-General to appear and assist the Court. We heard learned Counsel for the parties including the Union of India on the question at considerable length and reserved judgment. We were later informed by the learned Counsel that the same question had been argued before a Constitution Bench and its judgment was awaited, and they requested us to defer the judgment.
2. In S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. JT 1986 SC 996, the Constitution Bench has held that the Act is a law made by Parliament under Clause (1) of Article 323A to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Section 28 of the Act which bars the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court is relatable to Clause 2(d) of Article 323A for adjudication of service matters including questions involving the validity or otherwise of such laws on the ground that they abridge the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution, and that the Administrative Tribunal set up under Section 4 of the Act is a substitute of, and not supplemental to, the High Court providing an equally efficacious alternative remedy for adjudication of such disputes. It has further held that the establishment of the Administrative Tribunal under the Act therefore takes away the jurisdiction and power of the High Court to interfere in such matters but it is not violative of the doctrine of judicial review which is a fundamental aspect of the basic structure of our Constitution because Section 28 of the Act which bars the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution preserves the jurisdiction and power of the Supreme Court under Articles 32 and 136 of the Constitution. It accordingly follows that the Administrative Tribunal being a substitute of the High Court had the necessary jurisdiction, power and authority to adjudicate upon all disputes relating to service matters including the power to deal with ail questions pertaining to the constitutional validity or otherwise of such laws as offending Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution That being so, the contention advanced by the petitioners that the Administrative Tribunal had no authority or jurisdiction to strike down the impugned notification dated March 15, 1980 purporting to amend Section 4 4 of the Central Hindi Directorate (Class III and Class IV) Posts Recruitment Rules, 1961 reserving 100 per cent vacancies to the post of Superintendent to be filled by the Head Clerks and thereby debarring Stenographers (Sr.) from being considered for promotion to that post as being wholly mala fide, arbitrary and irrational and thus offending Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution, must therefore fail.
3. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
ORDER A.P. Sen, J.
1. In this special leave petition a question was raised regarding the authority and jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to strike down as constitutionally invalid a rule framed by the President of India under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution as being violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. That depends on a construction of Sections 14(1), 28 and 29(1) of the Act, as amended, read in the light of Article 323A of the Constitution. Since the question raised was of far-reaching importance we issued a notice to the learned Attorney-General to appear and assist the Court. We heard learned Counsel for the parties including the Union of India on the question at considerable length and reserved judgment. We were later informed by the learned Counsel that the same question had been argued before a Constitution Bench and its judgment was awaited, and they requested us to defer the judgment.
2. In S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. JT 1986 SC 996, the Constitution Bench has held that the Act is a law made by Parliament under Clause (1) of Article 323A to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Section 28 of the Act which bars the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court is relatable to Clause 2(d) of Article 323A for adjudication of service matters including questions involving the validity or otherwise of such laws on the ground that they abridge the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution, and that the Administrative Tribunal set up under Section 4 of the Act is a substitute of, and not supplemental to, the High Court providing an equally efficacious alternative remedy for adjudication of such disputes. It has further held that the establishment of the Administrative Tribunal under the Act therefore takes away the jurisdiction and power of the High Court to interfere in such matters but it is not violative of the doctrine of judicial review which is a fundamental aspect of the basic structure of our Constitution because Section 28 of the Act which bars the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution preserves the jurisdiction and power of the Supreme Court under Articles 32 and 136 of the Constitution. It accordingly follows that the Administrative Tribunal being a substitute of the High Court had the necessary jurisdiction, power and authority to adjudicate upon all disputes relating to service matters including the power to deal with ail questions pertaining to the constitutional validity or otherwise of such laws as offending Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution That being so, the contention advanced by the petitioners that the Administrative Tribunal had no authority or jurisdiction to strike down the impugned notification dated March 15, 1980 purporting to amend Section 4 4 of the Central Hindi Directorate (Class III and Class IV) Posts Recruitment Rules, 1961 reserving 100 per cent vacancies to the post of Superintendent to be filled by the Head Clerks and thereby debarring Stenographers (Sr.) from being considered for promotion to that post as being wholly mala fide, arbitrary and irrational and thus offending Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution, must therefore fail.
3. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Short Summary The case concerns the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to determine the constitutional validity of rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, specifically concerning Articles 14 and 16(1). The Supreme Court held that the CAT, as a substitute for the High Court in service matters, possesses the authority to adjudicate on the constitutional validity of such rules.
Facts The petitioners challenged the authority of the CAT to strike down a rule made by the President of India under Article 309, arguing it violated Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The rule in question amended the Central Hindi Directorate (Class III and Class IV) Posts Recruitment Rules, reserving 100% of Superintendent vacancies for Head Clerks, thereby excluding Stenographers (Sr.) from promotion consideration.
Issues Does the Central Administrative Tribunal, constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, have the jurisdiction and authority to strike down a rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution as being violative of Articles 14 and 16(1)?
Petitioner's Arguments The petitioners argued that the CAT lacked the authority and jurisdiction to strike down the notification amending the recruitment rules, contending that it was beyond the Tribunal's power to rule on the constitutional validity of such rules.
Respondent's Arguments The Union of India, as the respondent, argued that the CAT, as a substitute for the High Court in service matters, does possess the jurisdiction and authority to adjudicate on the constitutional validity of rules framed under Article 309, especially concerning Articles 14 and 16(1).
Court's Reasoning The Court relied on the Constitution Bench decision in S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, which established that the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, was enacted under Article 323A to exclude the jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227. Section 28 of the Act, barring the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court, was deemed relatable to Article 323A(2)(d). The Court reasoned that the CAT is a substitute for the High Court, providing an equally effective alternative remedy. Therefore, it has the necessary jurisdiction, power, and authority to adjudicate disputes relating to service matters, including the power to deal with questions pertaining to the constitutional validity of laws offending Articles 14 and 16(1).
Conclusion The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition. The Court held that the Administrative Tribunal had the authority and jurisdiction to strike down the impugned notification, as it was a substitute for the High Court and empowered to adjudicate on the constitutional validity of service rules. No order as to costs was made.
Get instant answers specific to this case
